2014 (12) TMI 862 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses delay petitions, imposes Rs. 50,000 costs on petitioner for deliberate delays.

The High Court dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay, citing no bona fide reason for the delays and considering the petitioner's actions as ... Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 1409 days - Held that:- Only reason stated is that the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but due to the above stated facts. We find that the facts narrated clearly show that at no point of time the petitioner showed sincerity in pursing the matter by participating into the adjudication proceedings. Time and again on the basis of plea of some return of unrelied upon documents, he has sought for postponement of the proceedings or filed petitions to scuttle the adjudication process. No doubt at the first instance, the Tribunal showed some indulgence calling upon the parties to give relied upon and unrelied upon documents, but after the first round of litigation, we find that the petitioner seems to be harping on the same issue again and again much to the annoyance of the Original Adjudicating Authority, who passed the order on 17.12.2009 as well as the Tribunal, who had to suffer the consequence of repeated application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal was very much annoyed on the conduct of the petitioner which we have already extracted above. In fact, we find that by jumbling various dates and events, the petitioner was attempting to confuse this Court as if there was a bona fide reason for the delay. After thorough examination and wasting the valuable time of this Court for more than 1 = hours, we are able to find that there is absolutely no justification for the delay of 1409 days and the entire exercise seems to be to further scuttle the Department's demand for duty, penalty and interest. Petitions for condonation of delay appear to be a dilatory tactics and there is no bona fide reason for the inordinate unexplained delay of 1409 days. In any event, the explanation given appears to be self-serving and to defeat the adjudication process. The time of the Original Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal and this Court is wasted in this process, which we find lack bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The delay of 199 days in filing the appeal as against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2013 also is based on the same plea and none of the documents relied upon in the typed set has been enclosed and the delay has been casually stated in the affidavit - In both the cases, we find that the plea for condonation of delay is not bona fide, but with the defiant intention to delay the process of recovery. We are constrained to dismiss both the petitions with cost. - Condontion denied. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.2. Alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice.3. Supply of relied upon and unrelied upon documents.4. Jurisdictional challenges.5. Dilatory tactics by the petitioner.6. Tribunal's direction compliance.7. Limitation period for filing appeals.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealsThe petitioner filed appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) with significant delays of 1409 days and 199 days. The High Court noted that the petitioner pursued the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which went against the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The court found no bona fide reason for the delay, considering it a tactic to delay the adjudication process and dismissed the petitions with costs of Rs. 50,000.Issue 2: Alleged Non-Compliance with Principles of Natural JusticeThe petitioner claimed gross violation of principles of natural justice, asserting that not all relied upon and unrelied upon documents were supplied. The Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal found that the necessary documents were provided, and any missing documents were not relied upon in the adjudication process. The Tribunal emphasized that the petitioner should have approached the first appellate authority rather than filing multiple miscellaneous petitions.Issue 3: Supply of Relied Upon and Unrelied Upon DocumentsThe petitioner repeatedly requested documents, which the department claimed to have supplied. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that the petitioner received the documents in February 2002, but the petitioner continued to demand additional documents, leading to multiple hearings and delays. The Tribunal and the High Court found that the petitioner's claims were unfounded and that the necessary documents had been provided.Issue 4: Jurisdictional ChallengesThe petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate the case, insisting that only the Additional Commissioner could do so. The Adjudicating Authority clarified that under Section 12E(1) of the Central Excise Act, a Central Excise officer could exercise the powers of a subordinate officer. The court found that the petitioner's jurisdictional challenges were another tactic to delay the proceedings.Issue 5: Dilatory Tactics by the PetitionerThe court observed that the petitioner adopted dilatory tactics to delay the adjudication process by repeatedly requesting documents and questioning the jurisdiction. The Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal noted the petitioner's non-cooperation and deliberate defiance, leading to multiple hearings and orders. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions were intended to scuttle the department's demand for duty, penalty, and interest.Issue 6: Tribunal's Direction ComplianceThe Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide the necessary documents and conduct fresh adjudication. Despite compliance, the petitioner continued to claim non-receipt of documents and filed multiple applications under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, emphasizing that the petitioner should have filed appeals before the first appellate authority.Issue 7: Limitation Period for Filing AppealsThe Tribunal and the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The petitioner's appeals were dismissed as time-barred, and the court found no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay, finding no bona fide reason for the delays and considering the petitioner's actions as deliberate attempts to delay the adjudication process. The court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for wasting the valuable time of the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal, and the court.